AuthorTopic: Tops Bottoms and Liberty 2 (Read 20212 times)

I think I got this thing figured out. Instead of hating on people who want to dominate maybe I should ask "Can't someone who wants to submit to their lover be allowed to be free?" The truth is about half the population wants to be subordinate and there is nothing wrong with that. Instead of expecting Dale or MWD to hold themselves to some sort of ideal (that I can't even achieve) maybe I should look up to them for admitting the world is how it is. We have liberty guys all over the place complaining about there not being enough ladies in the movement, but maybe libertarian men need to man up. Most women want a strong guy to rescue them, fix problems etc. I'll bet a feminine gay man is like that as well. We should sell subordinate people what they want instead of busting on them for being weak. I submit that maybe offering the bottoms what they are after, a supportive giving partner, would be a good sell. Time will tell if humanity can have a population raised with the NAP in mind and end up in equal partnerships having successful families, but that isn't the world we live in right now.

I think I got this thing figured out. Instead of hating on people who want to dominate maybe I should ask "Can't someone who wants to submit to their lover be allowed to be free?" The truth is about half the population wants to be subordinate and there is nothing wrong with that. Instead of expecting Dale or MWD to hold themselves to some sort of ideal (that I can't even achieve) maybe I should look up to them for admitting the world is how it is. We have liberty guys all over the place complaining about there not being enough ladies in the movement, but maybe libertarian men need to man up. Most women want a strong guy to rescue them, fix problems etc. I'll bet a feminine gay man is like that as well. We should sell subordinate people what they want instead of busting on them for being weak. I submit that maybe offering the bottoms what they are after, a supportive giving partner, would be a good sell. Time will tell if humanity can have a population raised with the NAP in mind and end up in equal partnerships having successful families, but that isn't the world we live in right now.

Like slaves?

That just might work.

Logged

I am looking for an honest man. -Diogenes The Cynic

Dude, I thought you were a spambot for like a week. You posted like a spambot. You failed the Turing test.

I'd given up trying to discuss this with you, honestly, because it seemed like you were being willfully ignorant of my responses. Maybe there's hope after all.

Some people are attracted to strength. A sexually dominant partner makes many people feel sexy and desirable, etc. It's not a shortcoming to be that way. After all, others are turned on by being dominant so they're filling a market need. It's actually extremely common to have being-raped fantasies but it seems (this is not scientific, but it seems) like few people actually have fantasies about raping people. I would theorize that actual rapists are actually acting out in frustration or anger, maybe even hate, rather than playing out a fantasy. Regardless, it's obviously deplorable behavior and a flagrant violation of libertarian morality and therefore completely unacceptable. Of course it's important to note that in a being-raped fantasy, the fantasizing person is actually in complete control of everything that's playing out in their heads. They don't really want to be raped. What some might want is a sort of play-rape in which they've actually consented ahead of time and can stop it if they ever feel unsafe.

Some folks like myself do have fantasies about being sexually aggressive with a partner who's consenting to and enjoying said dominant behavior. That's the turn-on. Dominating someone who is not enjoying it is a major turn-off. For the sub, I think it comes down to feeling sexy and desirable, so much so that someone pursues you actively. I say that from personal experience. In my younger days, I was in that head space. I think a lot of what makes me enjoy the idea of being dominant now is that I've learned from that and I feel like I know how to push the right buttons with someone who now feels as I once felt. That's true for a lot of doms. It's often said that the best doms are the ones who have been subs for a while. I feel like, once I have earned their trust, I can make them experience some really intense pleasure and that's a huge turn-on for me.

BDSM is about creating that really safe environment between two people who have established an exceptional degree of trust between them. We have animal natures that are often in conflict with what we think of as civilized behavior (like the NAP). The evolution of our humanity is going to require that we find that healthy balance of our natures. BDSM acknowledges our animal natures that's at the root of our sexual drives and tries to find that balance of chaos that is the sexual turn-on but allows us to feel safe (and of course actually BE safe) while we explore it. A GOOD dom moves very slowly and carefully so as to discover what is permitted and what is not and to NEVER EVER violate that trust. It only takes a minor mis-step to destroy trust and exponentially more work to regain it.

But once again, I feel the need to distinguish between the meaning of "bottom" in the straight terminology and the gay terminology. It doesn't mean submissive in the gay world. It specifically refers to a sexual position. A bottom in the gay world just means someone who enjoys getting fucked. What a lot of str8 guys will never learn is that the male anatomy is receptive to a lot of sexual pleasure from that act that has nothing to do with domination and submission. Bottoms can actually be dominant. We even have a term for them: "power bottoms". Believe me. I've dated some. I've had guys strip me down and climb on top of me and sit on it when I felt like we hadn't sufficiently completed the foreplay portion of the sex. I won't call it rape. I didn't exactly shove them off of me or anything. It was definitely rape-ish dominant behavior on their parts, but they were most definitely bottoms in the gay definition of the word. A lot of those guys would be hard-pressed to even "get it up" to be a top. That's why you'll more often hear "dom" and "sub" used in order to be perfectly clear.

Also, acting out rape-like sexual acts is only a tiny portion of what BDSM encompasses. A lot of BDSM isn't rapey at all. Often it includes a submissive person who's really turned on by eagerly working to sexually pleasure a dom in a manner that is very obviously consensual, emphasis on the word "eagerly". Again, I think it's about feeling sexy because you're pleasing someone so much and that's what pushes their buttons. I don't think it should be hard to understand how that can be pleasurable for the sub and how it's not selfish for the dom to allow himself to enjoy such an eagerness to please, especially not when he's been there himself and he knows the other person is really enjoying it.

I never understood why Tops, either Kink or gay, seem to get all defensive when questioned. What a couple physically does is easy to defend, as long as everything is consensual its none of anybody's business. A person who wants to dominate in a relationship is another question entirely. What I never got was a answer I could easily give to a square or a feminist or just a person who wants a business like relationship with their sex partner. I never wanted to put anyone down. I was always just trying to come up with a reasonable answer to a question I knew would come up. "How can a libertarian be dominant?" When I heard the reaction to the Typical Libertarian Chick (or whatever)'s take on women, and your complaint on Facebook that compliant boys were non too common, I started to think "Maybe libertarians are offering nothing to these people, so that is why there are so few of them." I haven't quite got the easily excepted answer down to a bumper sticker yet, but I am getting there. I don't find generalised details of who sticks what in who all that helpful to the question to be honest.

Even with me admitting tops have their place in the liberty movement, I still don't think it is a good idea to claim to be one in liberty minded company. If you are a alpha sort of person people just know.Zoochosis: "Case 2: Love"I don't really regret deleting that pointless book of threats, accusations, and insults that Dale and MWD turned my thread (where I really was trying to just figure it out) into, but I do feel bad about getting pissed off and deleting my brilliant Santorum thread.

Not the same thing. I don't consider myself an alpha sort of person, particularly. It's hard to connect with the kind of people you want to connect with, whether romantically or in other types of relationships, if you don't portray yourself honestly all the time.

Good point. No one is the alpha all the time. We are humans, the same person could be the leader in one place and a subordanant in another. Someone shouting from the rooftops in a kindergarden that they are the dominant one is just a dumbass. As far as sex parteners go, I think it would be a little wacky to discuss a complete blocking of the sex before I did it with a new person, but if you have pigonholed yourself into only certain acts I guess I can see the practical reasons for having a honest approach. Remember though that I don't claim to understand women at all, maybe they would like a complete run through. Maybe it would be a good rule of thumb for any top.

As far as sex parteners go, I think it would be a little wacky to discuss a complete blocking of the sex before I did it with a new person, but if you have pigonholed yourself into only certain acts I guess I can see the practical reasons for having a honest approach.

I think someone is a little nuts to act out a complicated fantasy scene with a new person, particularly if it was extra edgy. I personally wouldn't be comfortable with that. Remember how I said a good dom (IMHO, of course) goes slowly and a couple creates a safe space and establishes trust? I also haven't pigeonholed myself. Like everyone, I just have my preferences, like everyone does. I probably talk about them more openly than most because it fits my show and because I encourage people not to be ashamed of their sexual desires.

But once again, I feel the need to distinguish between the meaning of "bottom" in the straight terminology and the gay terminology. It doesn't mean submissive in the gay world. It specifically refers to a sexual position. A bottom in the gay world just means someone who enjoys getting fucked. What a lot of str8 guys will never learn is that the male anatomy is receptive to a lot of sexual pleasure from that act that has nothing to do with domination and submission. Bottoms can actually be dominant. We even have a term for them: "power bottoms".